Thread Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee Proposal
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Debbie Cook
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 11:05 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: firstname.lastname@example.org: "Re: Combined HardwareSubcommitteeProposal"
- Previous message in thread: Randy Marsden (Home): "Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee Proposal"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
So, back to 508. Perhaps our definition should include something like this:
A device is considered Â³Self-ContainedÂ² if the original manufacturer has not
provided a way for third-party software and hardware to be added to the
No. This doesn't work. There may be a way, but if no AT vendor has developed
the necessary AT, the product is NOT accessible. The developer says: Sure
you're welcome to make my product accessible. The AT developer says: Gee I
don't have te development resource to do that. So it's possible, not
happening, and not accessible. A product is only accessible if that
accessibility is reasonably available and exists.
A similar example occurs when the dveloper says "it worked with X AT" but
doesn't work with any of the AT users actually have. Still not really
accessible except in theory.
- Next message in Thread: email@example.com: "Re: Combined HardwareSubcommitteeProposal"
- Previous message in Thread: Randy Marsden (Home): "Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee Proposal"